turtledovefandomcom-20200216-history
Talk:Romani
Not clear in the story that shtetls were limited to Poland. Others may have been established in other Central and Eastern European areas that had them. ML4E (talk) 23:52, November 13, 2015 (UTC) Uncle Alf "Although Hitler repeatedly refers to Madame Lea as a "Jewess," her description matches the Gypsy stock characters common in fiction. It is highly possible that Harry Turtledove, who has demonstrated repeatedly that he is familiar with the difference, intended for Hitler to be mistaken about this matter." This adds nothing. Hitler calls her a Jewess. He never once calls her a gypsy or zigeuner. The Romani people play no role in UA. I see no reason to keep it. TR (talk) 14:19, September 27, 2017 (UTC) Romani Homeland After Zigeuner Something got me thinking last night. Since the Holocaust in the story mainly affected Romani people and Jews were left alone, does anyone think that the Romani people will get an actual homeland similar to how Jewish people got Israel? I mean, Romani people originate from India, right? Does anybody think the British will allow them to go come to India (which British rule was starting to wrap up at the time) to set up a homeland there or you think there will be tensions between them and the Hindus and Muslims already there? Either way, it sounds like an interesting scenario. --JCC the Alternate Historian (talk) 13:15, June 1, 2019 (UTC) :If HT had created any meaningfully believable scenario for the story, rather than a short historical mad lib, these questions might actually have some weight. I wish HT had taken the story's daring premise and done something beyond simply introducing it.Matthew Babe Stevenson (talk) 07:03, June 2, 2019 (UTC) ::Yeah, it is frustrating how much Nazi AH turns out to be nothing more than "Hey look, it's backwards!" Even TL-191 had a lot of that. ::To the original question, though: From what I know of Roma culture, there's no historical desire for a homeland woven into their traditions. Remember, the Bible is absolutely swimming in references to the homeland as the seal of the Hebrews' covenants with God. When He's happy, they have Israel to themselves; when He's not, they're occupied; and that they lost their homeland, apparently permanently, a generation after Jesus' time was something they were hit over the head with again and again by hostile Christian neighbors as a sign that they'd fallen permanently out of favor and had been replaced as the chosen people by the new church. Of course there's more to modern Zionism than mere scriptural fundamentalism, but dozens of generations of a culture being steeped in that tradition gave those other factors a particularly fertile ground in which to take root. ::The Roma on the other hand are quite happy to move on when the grass starts looking greener on the other side of the fence. Indeed, their oldest traditions are largely nomadic at heart. The need to escape Hitler's reach would make their wanderings much more urgent and deliberate, and would lead to them moving far beyond their familiar haunts, but these are really just differences of degree rather than kind. Turtle Fan (talk) 09:38, June 2, 2019 (UTC) :::Well Turtle Fan, thanks for the information. I guess I'll take the Romani people having a homeland after World War II as a no then and I guess they'll return to their normal behaviors or whatever after the war (probably should have the surviving ones get the Hell out of Germany, though). That reminds me though, what do you think will happen to what would become Israel and Palestine? --JCC the Alternate Historian (talk) 12:55, June 2, 2019 (UTC) ::::The Roma probably would end up shifting the center of their range, for lack of a better word, farther east, into western Asia, the Caucasus (where Stalin's unlikely to tolerate a large influx of people whose culture is so incompatible with what he was trying to push onto the citizens of the USSR, though fear of international bad press might stay his hand if pity for the Roma's victimhood ran high enough), possibly as far as the Indian subcontinent. They wouldn't find anywhere that would make an easy home, though. ::::I don't see Israel happening under these circumstances. At best a spirit of pan-Arab unification to hasten the already-well advanced process of decolonization (though that best is relative; it's unlikely to go well for non-Arab minorities like Yazidis and Kurds) with the superpowers competing to curry favor with the emerging Arab rulers. I don't doubt it will all fall apart and lead to infighting sooner or later, especially as whichever superpower fails to get the pan-Arab movement onside starts supporting dissenters. Turtle Fan (talk) 20:54, June 2, 2019 (UTC) :::::In OTL the anti-Semitic Stalin supported the creation of Israel as a catspaw that would make trouble for what remained of the British Empire, so he might suddenly get all warm and fuzzy to the Romani for a similar reason of convenience.Matthew Babe Stevenson (talk) 03:44, June 3, 2019 (UTC) ::::::So the gist of this I'm getting is that Israel probably won't exist as a county and Palestine will probably control all of its territory after the British gain it its independence, that the Romani may or may not get a homeland and Stalin feel sorry for the Romani and try to warm up to them? --JCC the Alternate Historian (talk) 17:55, June 3, 2019 (UTC) :::::::Some sort of Arab authority in what they'd call Palestine, at any rate. Much depends on what sort of internal divisions emerge among the Arabs. They're not going to form one big happy family, especially without an Israel for them to unite against. :::::::The Romani are unlikely to want a homeland and even more unlikely to find it. I really struggle to imagine Stalin feeling sorry for anyone, but if public sentiment is favorable enough toward the Romani, Stalin may hesitate to persecute them, especially if an opportunity to coopt that sentiment for his own purposes presents itself. Turtle Fan (talk) 03:03, June 4, 2019 (UTC)